Newcombe’s rate of winners over the course of the 45 games is not far below Laver’s in the 1969 final. He has a lot of volley/smash winners, in fact close to a rate of 1 per game, not far behind Gerulaitis and McEnroe against Borg in 1977 and 1981, respectively (at Wimbledon).

A very good Wimbledon final, I think it was the last GS final to be played by 2 of the greatest Australian players of any time.Obviously, Rafter and Philipousis played the last one, but none of them can compete with Newcombe and Rosewall.

Two contrasting styles, but Newcombe in 1970 was clearly peaking and more confident in his weapons than Rosewall ( who would beat Roche in the same year´s US Open,tough).

At the end, a battle between Newk´s serve and Ken´s return of serve.In 71, Newcombe defeated easily Rosewall in the semifinals, in what might have been Ken´s last real chance to win that elusive title he never won.

I've gotten new stats, and made slight corrections to the opening post.

I did a couple of things I hadn’t done before. I counted how many times Rosewall stayed back on his serve; and I recorded where Newcombe was directing his serves.

Rosewall did not directly follow his serve to net on 35 points (6 of them first serves).

He lost 17 of these 35 points. But at one stretch late in the match he won 12 of 13.

By then he seemed, on these points, to be making an approach shot early in the rally and not letting John make the first approach.

In the third and fourth sets Rosewall made all of his FH returns. In fact after making a FH return error early in the second set, he didn’t make another until early in the fifth: a streak of 16 successful FH returns.

During that streak Rosewall took 63 serves on the BH, and out of those he was forced into 15 return errors.

Overall in the match Rosewall made more return errors on his stronger wing: 24 on the BH, 4 on the FH. That's almost entirely due to the fact that most serves were being directed to his BH.

Vines wrote in his book that you should always approach to your opponent’s backhand even if that is his stronger stroke. The theory there is that the BH is always more attackable than the FH, even in the case of a player whose backhand is regarded as his stronger side.

Rosewall even ran around his BH a few times during his stretch of successful FH returns.

Newcombe was approaching his prime in 1970, Ken was 35 already. It's harder to prevail at an older age against the very best and Newcombe had the big serve. Rosewall is one of the players I admire most in tennis history and he would surely have won a couple of Wimbledon titles in his prime if everyone had been allowed to compete. Boycott years didn't help either. If Open tennis had come about in 1960 for instance, that would have suited Ken.

Pity Ken Rosewall. Sixteen years ago he stood on Wimbledon's center court in the finals against Jaroslav Drobny, a 19-year-old boy against a Wimbledon favorite. Drobny won, a popular decision, and little sympathy was wasted on Rosewall. Surely he would have other opportunities. Two years later Rosewall reached the finals again and this time he lost to his doubles partner, Lew Hoad. When Rosewall turned pro, he became ineligible for Wimbledon and by the time open tennis arrived, Rod Laver had supplanted him as the best player in the world.

And yet last week, on a damp, humid afternoon, there was Ken Rosewall, now 35, back on center court and in the finals, back for perhaps his last try at the one major title he had never won. Across the net was John Newcombe, another Australian—this was the 10th All-Australian final in the last 15 years—a big, strong, good-looking 26-year-old with a crashing serve and volley and the stamina to run all day. It would be pleasant to report that little Ken, with his lightning backhand and delicate touch, cut the bigger man down, as almost everyone in London wanted him to do. In truth Newcombe won and it was not really close, that is if you can call a five-set match not close.

Rosewall won the first set by breaking Newcombe's big serve in the 11th game and then holding his own.

But for the next hour it was all Newcombe. Whenever Rosewall missed with his first serve, Newcombe would take the weak second one on his forehand, perhaps the strongest in tennis, and pin Rosewall back on his heels. Newcombe won the second and third sets 6-3, 6-2 and when he immediately broke Rosewall to start the fourth set, the rout appeared to be on. Rosewall looked exhausted, and he would seize the brief rest periods to sit at the base of the umpire chair, waiting until Newcombe took his position on the court before rising.

Losing 1-3, Rosewall fell behind love-30 on his serve and it seemed certain that Newcombe was about to apply the crusher. There then occurred one of the most remarkable reversals in Wimbledon history. Rosewall won four straight points to make it 2-3. He won four more on Newcombe's serve to even the set. Four more made it 12 straight points and 4-3 Rosewall. Again Rosewall broke Newcombe, held his own serve and won the set 6-3. From that black moment in the fifth game he had won 20 out of 23 points.

The applause around the stadium was, by Wimbledon's standards, enormous—but it was applause for a dying man. Newcombe may be young, but he does not shake up easily. Leading 2-1 in the fifth set, he broke Rosewall's serve and rattled off four more games in a row for the match. For Newcombe it was his second Wimbledon title—he won in 1967—while Rosewall had only the sad distinction of the most years between losses in the finals.​

Rosewall was still able to beat Newcombe in 3 sets later in the year at the US Open.

Their other important meetings:
1-1 in 1971 (Newcombe won at Wimbledon, Rosewall at the WCT Finals)
no crucial matches in 1972
1-0 in 1973 (Newcombe won the US Open semifinal)
0-2 in 1974 (Rosewall won at both Wimbledon and US Open)

I think this clearly demonstrates Rosewall greatness, he leads 4-3 against a top player that he faced when he was 35-39 years old...

It's surprising and I think it shows the quality of Rosewall's return. Newcombe clearly had the better serve (Rosewall's 11 df's in particular hurt him). But Rosewall's superiority on return was just about the same as Newk's superiority on serve, you could say, since they ended up nearly even in unreturned serves.

Another sign of Rosewall's return quality is that he could string together 12 straight points in the fourth set. To produce such a streak on grass is noteworthy because it's difficult to break serve. Even when a player is broken he might easily win a point during the game, ruining any possible streak of points by the opponent. But Rosewall managed to break Newcombe's serve at love, on grass, which obviously doesn't happen every day.

And Rosewall missed no FH returns at all in the third and fourth sets, another sign of his return quality.

I would think so; there are a couple of Wimbledon finals from the era ('71-'72) that are even better but this one was between two alltime greats. It gives a good sense of Newcombe's quality in particular.

It's surprising and I think it shows the quality of Rosewall's return. Newcombe clearly had the better serve (Rosewall's 11 df's in particular hurt him). But Rosewall's superiority on return was just about the same as Newk's superiority on serve, you could say, since they ended up nearly even in unreturned serves.

Another sign of Rosewall's return quality is that he could string together 12 straight points in the fourth set. To produce such a streak on grass is noteworthy because it's difficult to break serve. Even when a player is broken he might easily win a point during the game, ruining any possible streak of points by the opponent. But Rosewall managed to break Newcombe's serve at love, on grass, which obviously doesn't happen every day.

And Rosewall missed no FH returns at all in the third and fourth sets, another sign of his return quality.

I would think so; there are a couple of Wimbledon finals from the era ('71-'72) that are even better but this one was between two alltime greats. It gives a good sense of Newcombe's quality in particular.

Click to expand...

krosero, It might be of interest that even a tired Rosewall was able to keep the "clear" fifth set rather "open": No easy game for Newcombe.

bobbyone, to a serious and knowledgeable poster like you, it certainly will raise some suspictions that Newcombe lost to Rosewall in 74 the way he really did...Are the rumours of pseudo tanking true?

I resisted to believe that such a sportsman would do an ugly thing, even if that was motivated by the best intention to give his old nemesis a last chance...Newk had a big heart but..that much?

Click to expand...

kiki, You were 97, now you have crossed the 100 years mark. Have you forgotten that another poster (I believe krosero) has blamed you for that nasty assumption? It is nasty for Newk as a sportsman and it's nasty for Rosewall that the latter was not able to defeat a healthy and willing Newcombe!!!

Get real and accept that Rosewall was a much greater player than Newcombe and that he was stronger than Newk even at 39 in the two most important events of the year.

As much as you worship Newcombe, Fraser and Emerson, you at the same time belittle Rosewall, Roche and Gimeno.

kiki, You were 97, now you have crossed the 100 years mark. Have you forgotten that another poster (I believe krosero) has blamed you for that nasty assumption? It is nasty for Newk as a sportsman and it's nasty for Rosewall that the latter was not able to defeat a healthy and willing Newcombe!!!

Get real and accept that Rosewall was a much greater player than Newcombe and that he was stronger than Newk even at 39 in the two most important events of the year.

As much as you worship Newcombe, Fraser and Emerson, you at the same time belittle Rosewall, Roche and Gimeno.

Thought you have studied history without any bias...

Click to expand...

Well, in the Masters players like Borg,Vilas,Mc Enroe and Lendl did tank

Anyway, I don´t for one second think that was possible and specially from an australian player because they were all real sportsmen.

Of course, Rosewall could beat anybody anytime anywhere.He was greater than Newk to some extent, of course ( but not that far as you imagine)

Too many all timers with comparable careers
One place up and down means absolutely nothing
It depends on very small detailed
Budge,Kramer,Perry,Hoad,Sedgie may be top ten or maybe top 20
Too many players with very comparable careers
Rosewall is second tier

Too many all timers with comparable careers
One place up and down means absolutely nothing
It depends on very small detailed
Budge,Kramer,Perry,Hoad,Sedgie may be top ten or maybe top 20
Too many players with very comparable careers
Rosewall is second tier

Click to expand...

kiki, Rosewall second tier? Then you never have watched this genius player and you never had a look at his resume..........

The problem is I looked at other resumees as well...
Second tier is enormous
It would be comparable to. say, Verdi or Liszt if we talked about music or Rubens or Rembrandt if we talked about painting
Do you think it is not enough?

The problem is I looked at other resumees as well...
Second tier is enormous
It would be comparable to. say, Verdi or Liszt if we talked about music or Rubens or Rembrandt if we talked about painting
Do you think it is not enough?

Click to expand...

kiki, No clue reg. tennis and no clue reg classic music (You prefer music a la Led Z.).

Liszt was a weak composer.

Rosewall can be compared with Bach, or Mozart, or Beethoven, or Schubert, together with Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver!

PRE OPEN
Gonzales
Laver
Tilden
Rosewall
Budge
Kramer/Hoad
Perry
Cochet/Lacoste
Wilding/Vines
Crawford
Sedgie
Trabert
Emerson
Parker
Borotra
Doherty
Von Cramm
Would be my top 20
OPEN
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Laver
Lendl/Connors/Mc Enroe/Nadal
Agassi
Becker
Newk/Wilander/Djokovic/Edberg
Rosewall/Nastase.
Vilas/Courier/Kuerten
Kodes/Murray/Ashe/Smith
would be my top 20
in case you want to place Laver and Rosewall out of open era the two entering should be Hewitt and Bruguera

Federer's 5-game surge to force a fifth set yesterday reminded me of Rosewall's similar surge of 6 games vs. Newk. The two matches progressed somewhat in the same way; Rosewall and Federer both won the first set but found themselves a break down in the fourth and nearly finished.

Federer is getting a bit into Rosewall territory. A month short of 33, he would have been the oldest Wimbledon champion of the OE if he'd won yesterday. Rosewall was 35 years 8 months when he lost to Newk, and would easily still be the oldest Wimbledon champion of the OE.